Hello,
Here is the current patch countdown list. The next countdown will be on
March 18th.
A quick synopsis of all patches currently in the review process can be
found here:
http://philholmes.net/lilypond/allura/
Push:
5491 Scripts: Removed references to gmane - James Lowe
htt
On 3/15/2019 11:12 AM, Karlin High wrote:
From what I've seen so far, some Apple open-source things are GPL2.
They also have an "Apple Public Software License.
I haven't compared it with GPL, not an expert in this area.
It turns out that the Free Software Foundation has already reviewed the
On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 9:25 AM Hans Åberg wrote:
>
> How is it going with those glyphs? The Turkish AEU notation system does
> not have all the glyphs needed for a transposable system, so one might use
> those glyphs to fill the gaps.
>
I second that this would be fantastic!
Adam
_
On 3/15/2019 8:52 AM, David Kastrup wrote:
Karlin High writes:
Phil? Anyone? How much extra effort for macOS builds would be tolerable?
(In any case; with or without Apple hardware. All aside from
matter-of-principle objections to Apple's license requirement.)
It is disingenuous to call it
Karlin High writes:
> Phil? Anyone? How much extra effort for macOS builds would be tolerable?
>
> (In any case; with or without Apple hardware. All aside from
> matter-of-principle objections to Apple's license requirement.)
It is disingenuous to call it "matter-of-principle objections" if we
d
> On 15 Mar 2019, at 13:06, Karlin High wrote:
>
> On 3/15/2019 4:44 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>> I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the
> problem exactly?
> Here's my understanding so far.
>
> * The next version of macOS will only run 64-bit software. (The current
On 3/15/2019 4:44 AM, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the
problem exactly?
Here's my understanding so far.
* The next version of macOS will only run 64-bit software. (The current
"Mojave" version runs 32-bit, but gives a warning.)
* LilyPon
> On 15 Mar 2019, at 10:44, Han-Wen Nienhuys wrote:
>
> If Apple and their lawyers think it is fine to redistribute GPL
> binaries made with XCode, then we should be fine too.
The one you use now provides GCC4.2 I think it is, but later versions only
provides Clang, not the real one but an Ap
Han-Wen Nienhuys writes:
> I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the
> problem exactly? I am pretty sure that
>
> a) Apple has been distributing GPL'd binaries with OSX. I bet they
> were built with XCode.
GPL-2.0. And of course Apple is not bound by the conditions of its
I have been following this thread with half an eye. What is the
problem exactly? I am pretty sure that
a) Apple has been distributing GPL'd binaries with OSX. I bet they
were built with XCode.
b) Apple has a band of lawyers that ensure that they stay within the
constraints of the license.
(see a
10 matches
Mail list logo
